Capitalism has run its course-expect collapse

[Guest]

"America Capitalism" is a "Lost Soul" ... we've lost our moral compass ... the coming collapse is the end of an "inevitable" historical cycle stalking all great empires to their graves. Downsize your lifestyle expectations, trust no one, not even media.

Faber is uncertain about timing, we are not. There is a high probability of a crisis and collapse by 2012. The "Great Depression 2" is dead ahead. Unfortunately, there's absolutely nothing you can do to hide from this unfolding reality or prevent the rush of the historical imperative.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-soul-is-lost-and-collapse-is-inevitable-2009-10-20?pagenumber=2

I told you so, and now the Wall Street Journal agrees.

Br Cornelius

[Lysippos]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-soul-is-lost-and-collapse-is-inevitable-2009-10-20?pagenumber=2

I told you so, and now the Wall Street Journal agrees.

Br Cornelius

Are you sure about that? Why do you think the Wall Street Journal had anything to do with this? Also its from 2009.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Scepticus

[Mr Right Wing]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-soul-is-lost-and-collapse-is-inevitable-2009-10-20?pagenumber=2

I told you so, and now the Wall Street Journal agrees.

Br Cornelius

You are at the other side of the political spectrum to me and I'm interested in knowing why you think Capitalism causes moral collapse.

I'm pro-Capitalism. I think organisations should be aggressive and see themselves as vehicles for domination. I believe in Corporate Fascism where only the fittest survive because that leads to higher returns for investors, more tax contribution and jobs for people.

I'm against forcing organisations to see themselves as cells inside a body. It removes the evolutionary pressures which would have seperated the wheat from the chaff. All the red tape also holds them back from living up to their true potential. In essence I think Communism leads to the collapse of nations as their businesses lose their survival edge. Soviet Russia being the perfect example.

In my opinion moral collapse has nothing to do with Capitalism. The problem is with people themselves. An ideology can supress the darker side of peoples personalities but it still exists. Just as many crooks, criminals and deviants exist under a Communist State as a Theocracy, Democracy or Monarchy. As religion has lost its influence the undesirable side of peoples personalities has risen to the surface.

[Lysippos]

Are you sure about that? Why do you think the Wall Street Journal had anything to do with this? Also its from 2009.

Dont worry. I have seen my mistake.

[Guest]

You are at the other side of the political spectrum to me and I'm interested in knowing why you think Capitalism causes moral collapse.

I'm pro-Capitalism. I think organisations should be aggressive and see themselves as vehicles for domination. I believe in Corporate Fascism where only the fittest survive because that leads to higher returns for investors, more tax contribution and jobs for people.

I'm against forcing organisations to see themselves as cells inside a body. It removes the evolutionary pressures which would have seperated the wheat from the chaff. All the red tape also holds them back from living up to their true potential. In essence I think Communism leads to the collapse of nations as their businesses lose their survival edge. Soviet Russia being the perfect example.

In my opinion moral collapse has nothing to do with Capitalism. The problem is with people themselves. An ideology can supress the darker side of peoples personalities but it still exists. Just as many crooks, criminals and deviants exist under a Communist State as a Theocracy, Democracy or Monarchy. As religion has lost its influence the undesirable side of peoples personalities has risen to the surface.

It is not an either or choice between capitalism and communism. They are mearly different flavours of expansionist materialism. They are built upon false moral foundations which only consider outcomes in terms of personal gain and loss. Such reductive thinking always leads to the worst outcomes for the "whole" which is the collective of all contributing parts - and fundamentally can only be conceived of as the total ecosystem which supports us.

To value competition over cooperation is not a true reflection of the natural underpinnings of our world - they are a small part of the overall scheme of things. Symbiotic cooperative organisations have persisted since the very beginnings of life on this planet - and are the real models of successful productivity where the system gains through their existence.

The future will not be secular materialistic socialism, or secular materialist capitalism. Both paths lead to ultimate extinction because they destroy the resource base upon which they depend. As the article says, we can choose to survive as a culture by recognising our problems and planning systematically to overcome them. The model of corporate capitalism fails here because

a) it distorts reality to favour its own outcomes rather than actually adapting to the physical reality (need I remind you of the bail outs - which a corporate bankers response to not facing up to reality)

b ) it has always worked on the principle of externalising its costs which is sociopathic and ultimately short termism because it undermines the systems on which it relies to provide infrastructure and customers.

c) it can conceive of no good greater than itself and its share holders which always leads to exploitation of those not on the inside of its virtuous circle.

Fundamentally both capitalism and socialism are just conceptual models of how a system works, which attempts to manipulate the system to conform with the model. It denies and distorts those parts of reality which don't fit their agenda. They are both so fundamentally flawed that they were doomed to collapse from the very first day that someone thought to formalise them with a name.

Unless they are able to

a) preserve the ecosystem on which they rely for their resource base

b ) provide the majority of their participants with the means of comfortable survival,

They cannot be said to be fit for purpose and so deserve to perish before they destroy everything of value in the world. The failure to engender moral legitimacy within the population which these systems serve means that people will not support them through the bad times - which leads to direct and acute suffering in the citizenry. At that point the true fascistic nature of corporate capitalism rears its ugly head and the citizens realise how much their freedom was actually contingent on feeding the beast with their resources and children. Grim times are coming when there will be paramilitaries on the streets, supporting the legitimacy of Corporate capitalism. It has happened in every single capitalist country which has seen a sovereign debt crisis and so there is absolutely no reason to believe that it will not happen to America.

Frankly its childish to restrict yourself to considering these issues in left-right terms - when that doesn't actually bring a single one of the real issues to the table.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 21, 2011 by Guest

[Leonardo]

I'm pro-Capitalism. I think organisations should be aggressive and see themselves as vehicles for domination. I believe in Corporate Fascism where only the fittest survive because that leads to higher returns for investors, more tax contribution and jobs for people.

Like any other system, 'Capitalism' is not the problem - it is how human beings work the system that is the issue.

Your second sentence is one of the prime reasons behind the economic downturn. The drive for maximisation of returns to investors/shareholders caused many large institutions/corporations to seek to improve their bottom line year on year. This is only possible in a 'infinitely growing market', which does not apply to any of our economies. Therefore, because they could not improve the bottom line (and hence, returns for investors/shareholders) through organic growth, large institutions/corporations turned to cutting costs.

What is the main cost those institutions/corporations cut?

Salary/wages through 'workforce downsizing', largely driven by efficiencies acheived in automation, etc.

The net product of this is, of course, many more people without jobs, or on low income because the 'good jobs' are disappearing. This causes the economy to shrink.

Viola!

The drive by large institutions/corporations to improve their bottom line actually causes them to have to shrink their business - because the consumer economy is no longer there to support it. You have fewer jobs, and relatively more lower paid jobs, and therefore a shrinking government revenue through taxation.

Businesses need to take a holistic approach to their responsibilities as a part of the society they provide products and services to.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Leonardo

[questionmark]

Capitalism will exist as long as it works for everybody. At this point it is not working for about 20% of Americans anymore so a system change/readjustment is perfectly possible. Lets hope it is a readjustment as a system change' birthing pains generally entails lots of suffering.

[Rafterman]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-soul-is-lost-and-collapse-is-inevitable-2009-10-20?pagenumber=2

I told you so, and now the Wall Street Journal agrees.

Br Cornelius

"There is a high probability of a crisis and collapse by 2012. The "Great Depression 2" is dead ahead."

They'd better hurry.

[Mr Right Wing]

It is not an either or choice between capitalism and communism. They are mearly different flavours of expansionist materialism. They are built upon false moral foundations which only consider outcomes in terms of personal gain and loss. Such reductive thinking always leads to the worst outcomes for the "whole" which is the collective of all contributing parts - and fundamentally can only be conceived of as the total ecosystem which supports us.

To value competition over cooperation is not a true reflection of the natural underpinnings of our world - they are a small part of the overall scheme of things. Symbiotic cooperative organisations have persisted since the very beginnings of life on this planet - and are the real models of successful productivity where the system gains through their existence.

The future will not be secular materialistic socialism, or secular materialist capitalism. Both paths lead to ultimate extinction because they destroy the resource base upon which they depend. As the article says, we can choose to survive as a culture by recognising our problems and planning systematically to overcome them. The model of corporate capitalism fails here because

a) it distorts reality to favour its own outcomes rather than actually adapting to the physical reality (need I remind you of the bail outs - which a corporate bankers response to not facing up to reality)

b ) it has always worked on the principle of externalising its costs which is sociopathic and ultimately short termism because it undermines the systems on which it relies to provide infrastructure and customers.

c) it can conceive of no good greater than itself and its share holders which always leads to exploitation of those not on the inside of its virtuous circle.

Fundamentally both capitalism and socialism are just conceptual models of how a system works, which attempts to manipulate the system to conform with the model. It denies and distorts those parts of reality which don't fit their agenda. They are both so fundamentally flawed that they were doomed to collapse from the very first day that someone thought to formalise them with a name.

Unless they are able to

a) preserve the ecosystem on which they rely for their resource base

b ) provide the majority of their participants with the means of comfortable survival,

They cannot be said to be fit for purpose and so deserve to perish before they destroy everything of value in the world. The failure to engender moral legitimacy within the population which these systems serve means that people will not support them through the bad times - which leads to direct and acute suffering in the citizenry. At that point the true fascistic nature of corporate capitalism rears its ugly head and the citizens realise how much their freedom was actually contingent on feeding the beast with their resources and children. Grim times are coming when there will be paramilitaries on the streets, supporting the legitimacy of Corporate capitalism. It has happened in every single capitalist country which has seen a sovereign debt crisis and so there is absolutely no reason to believe that it will not happen to America.

Frankly its childish to restrict yourself to considering these issues in left-right terms - when that doesn't actually bring a single one of the real issues to the table.

Br Cornelius

I think some of your assumptions about what organisations are like are wrong.

Corporate giants arent corrupt, they dont strip the land bare and they dont exploit people. They arent small businesses in a town somewhere they have become giants because of very good business practices.

They all practice Corporate Social Responsibility Policies. They dont undermine the State however they do wage war on rival businesses which is fair game. It reduces prices for the consumer.

It isnt about materialism. All people need to eat, drink, clothe themselves, drive to work and have enjoyment in life.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Mr Right Wing

[Guest]

I think some of your assumptions about what organisations are like are wrong.

Corporate giants arent corrupt, they dont strip the land bare and they dont exploit people. They arent small businesses in a town somewhere they have become giants because of very good business practices.

They all practice Corporate Social Responsibility Policies. They dont undermine the State however they do wage war on rival businesses which is fair game. It reduces prices for the consumer.

It isnt about materialism. All people need to eat, drink, clothe themselves, drive to work and have enjoyment in life.

Every single corporation which has a charter of "Corporate responsibility" can be shown to have abused its workers at some time. It really is a matter of what the regulations will let you away with, and if the regulations are tight in one juristication then move to one where they are lose - hence the collapse of American labour.

Corporations have no choice in these matters, it is there legal duty to create the best margins on their activities - they are not capable of been truly responsible.

They systematically externalise their costs (when allowed) to the state, and they systematically avoid paying taxes - and lobby for preferential tax rates.

They are anti-social and corrosive to social cohesion. They are only top dog because they are the most aggressively competitive and manipulative in achieving their objectives.

Achieving the basic material needs of the world is not that difficult, but when wealth is concentrated in the hands of less than 1% of the population of the world - it is all but impossible - another result of corporate capitalism.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could attempt to defend corporate capitalism in its current incarnation, it shows a profound inability to actually see its results.

Br Cornelius

[Mr_Snstr]

What brand of system is being operated really doesn't matter so much as the people operating within that system.

Capatilism, socialism, fascism, communism, etc...; rarely does one exist in "pure" form. Often it is cut with different, sometimes seemingly opposing ideologies.

The only way any can work for the long-term is when everybody understands that even though there will be winners and losers; it's only when everyone wins does it not eat itself eventually. IE "Losers" must still have the incentive to try to win; if it is perceived the system is rigged against them; they will not. "Winners" must use their winnings to prop up the losers(whether directly or indirectly); and must resist rigging the system in their favor.

It's like prisoners dillema. If everyone banks on winning a little; everyone is reletively happy; or at least content. It's as soon as greed takes over does the boat start to rock.

The real problem is greed running amok. Greed, tempered, can drive a person to greatness and success. But unhindered will take and take and leave everyone else with nothing; when this happens it's inevitable that everyone loses.

----

It would be nice if a "capitalist" or "socialist" market could be switched on and off as needed. When imbalence becomes too high; switch on the socialist tendancies; and once it evens out switch it off and switch on the capitalist tendancies. Technically this does sort of happen but; but often switching leads violent revolutions, military coups, Tyrants, or just general divisiveness amongst the population as we see now.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Leonardo]

What brand of system is being operated really doesn't matter so much as the people operating within that system.

While I do not disgree about your proposition that "people will work the system for their own gain", the system being operated does make a difference.

In its current form, capitalism is nothing more than economic feudalism - with all the issues that form of social structure involves. There is little to no representation for the 'peasants' while the 'Lords and Barons' (CEO's, CFO's, Executive Board) have little real accountability.

A recent study showed that Executive pay, based on the pay of CEO's, has only a weak correlation to company performance. While this study was done to highlight the myth of high pay fueling a 'high risk' strategy, it also highlights the lack of accountability inherent in executive offices.

[Mr_Snstr]

While I do not disgree about your proposition that "people will work the system for their own gain", the system being operated does make a difference.

In its current form, capitalism is nothing more than economic feudalism - with all the issues that form of social structure involves. There is little to no representation for the 'peasants' while the 'Lords and Barons' (CEO's, CFO's, Executive Board) have little real accountability.

A recent study showed that Executive pay, based on the pay of CEO's, has only a weak correlation to company performance. While this study was done to highlight the myth of high pay fueling a 'high risk' strategy, it also highlights the lack of accountability inherent in executive offices.

Well that brings me to the next paragraph in my post:

Capatilism, socialism, fascism, communism, etc...; rarely does one exist in "pure" form. Often it is cut with different, sometimes seemingly opposing ideologies.

Most types of "systems" being operated in our day are allot more similar than we think.

The accountability was supposed to come from implosion; if wealth disparity became too great. In a small contained market; one can only work the system so much, and for so long. The bigger the market; the more and longer one can work the system for their own gain. We see such huge disparity these days as local markets(which are unable to sustain such disparity) now operate on a global scale; which can sustain such disparity for longer; possibly indefinitely.

I'm not saying we should be chopping up the world economy into small isolated pockets. I'm not really saying anything as to what should be done. Though I am open to suggestions.

How does one balence incentive to succeed; while not allowing anyone to win or lose too much?

[Guest]

Well that brings me to the next paragraph in my post:

Capatilism, socialism, fascism, communism, etc...; rarely does one exist in "pure" form. Often it is cut with different, sometimes seemingly opposing ideologies.

Most types of "systems" being operated in our day are allot more similar than we think.

The accountability was supposed to come from implosion; if wealth disparity became too great. In a small contained market; one can only work the system so much, and for so long. The bigger the market; the more and longer one can work the system for their own gain. We see such huge disparity these days as local markets(which are unable to sustain such disparity) now operate on a global scale; which can sustain such disparity for longer; possibly indefinitely.

I'm not saying we should be chopping up the world economy into small isolated pockets. I'm not really saying anything as to what should be done. Though I am open to suggestions.

How does one balence incentive to succeed; while not allowing anyone to win or lose too much?

These are not the real questions. there is a vast wealth of human talent which is literally redundant because of capitalist market forces. How to tap these in a useful and productive way to make the outcomes for society in general better are the real issues at stake.

Capitalism is dysfunctional because its incentives are perverse to the actual needs of society.

Br Cornelius

[Leonardo]

How does one balence incentive to succeed; while not allowing anyone to win or lose too much?

Define 'success' so that it accounts for everyone. This is a question, not an answer.

Are you assuming 'success' = 'get rich'?

Edited December 21, 2011 by Leonardo

[tapirmusic]

These are not the real questions. there is a vast wealth of human talent which is literally redundant because of capitalist market forces. How to tap these in a useful and productive way to make the outcomes for society in general better are the real issues at stake.

Capitalism is dysfunctional because its incentives are perverse to the actual needs of society.

please list these "redundant talents"

I'm am not following you at all on this one...

[Mr Right Wing]

Every single corporation which has a charter of "Corporate responsibility" can be shown to have abused its workers at some time. It really is a matter of what the regulations will let you away with, and if the regulations are tight in one juristication then move to one where they are lose - hence the collapse of American labour.

Corporations have no choice in these matters, it is there legal duty to create the best margins on their activities - they are not capable of been truly responsible.

They systematically externalise their costs (when allowed) to the state, and they systematically avoid paying taxes - and lobby for preferential tax rates.

They are anti-social and corrosive to social cohesion. They are only top dog because they are the most aggressively competitive and manipulative in achieving their objectives.

Achieving the basic material needs of the world is not that difficult, but when wealth is concentrated in the hands of less than 1% of the population of the world - it is all but impossible - another result of corporate capitalism.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could attempt to defend corporate capitalism in its current incarnation, it shows a profound inability to actually see its results.

Br Cornelius

Corporations arent anti-social or corrosive. All businesses attract a certain percentage of toxic employees and some will get promoted before its realised what they are. They dont represent the business or its policies and the Human Resources Department of Corporations take a dim view of their attitude towards other staff.

The senior management and directors of a business put in place decent, sound policies. They cant police the whole Corporation so if there are toxic employees its partly the staffs duty to bring it to managements attention. Some sociopaths are very good at playing people so they might not even realise they have a sociopathic worker or manager.

As for Corporate Responsponsibility business managers are taught to represent all stakeholders starting with the most important. They are taught to represent the needs of the country and surrounding community. The reason for this is to prevent bad reputations which can damage revenues. An example of very good Corporate Responsibility is the BP oil leak where they spent billions trying to repair the damage they had done.

Business owners are people like everybody else. They dont lack morality simply because they own a share of a business. Many donate large sums of money to all areas of society, many take environmental concerns seriously.

Capitalism has done a lot for the west. Look at North Korea its desolute.

[Mr_Snstr]

Define 'success' so that it accounts for everyone. This is a question, not an answer.

Are you assuming 'success' = 'get rich'?

Well for me success means at least partial financial independance; only having to work less than part time hours(<20hrs/wk) to sustain a decent living. Decent living being a small house(1-2bdrm, <1000sqft); with an acre or so, and time to work that land to live partially off of. While not having to worry about going hungry and paying the bills(water, high speed internet, and electricity).

But I don't expect my definition of that to fit everyone elses. This is where some of the problems start. I'll reword my previous question accordingly:

How does one balence incentive to succeed; while not allowing anyone to win or lose too much? Success being a relative term; with widely varying degrees of resources needed to achieve the different definitions of success. As well as winning and losing being relative terms that vary just as great as success; and often interdependant on each other.

If we could define success in a way that accounts for everyone; and that everyone would agree upon that would be great. But there seems to always be some who acheive more; and those who feel they deserve more.

What I'm saying is I can't define success for anyone other than myself. The question I said above that's italisized was half serious and half toungue in cheek. Simply because even though it's a simple question, it's also as complex as humanity itself. A simple solution wouldbe great; but if we could come up with that we wouldn't be having this discussion; we'd be talking about how awesome the world is instead.

Really I'm just curious on other peoples thoughts on the matter.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Mr_Snstr]

These are not the real questions. there is a vast wealth of human talent which is literally redundant because of capitalist market forces. How to tap these in a useful and productive way to make the outcomes for society in general better are the real issues at stake.

Capitalism is dysfunctional because its incentives are perverse to the actual needs of society.

Br Cornelius

Yes, a "pure" capitalism offers monetary incentives. Which do not always directly translate into the actual needs of society.

What would you say are viable alternatives that eliminate these shortcomings? We should not demonize what we have so easily without knowing our alternatives.

[Mr Right Wing]

Well for me success means at least partial financial independance; only having to work less than part time hours(<20hrs/wk) to sustain a decent living. Decent living being a small house(1-2bdrm, <1000sqft); with an acre or so, and time to work that land to live partially off of. While not having to worry about going hungry and paying the bills(water, high speed internet, and electricity).

But I don't expect my definition of that to fit everyone elses. This is where some of the problems start. I'll reword my previous question accordingly:

How does one balence incentive to succeed; while not allowing anyone to win or lose too much? Success being a relative term; with widely varying degrees of resources needed to achieve the different definitions of success. As well as winning and losing being relative terms that vary just as great as success; and often interdependant on each other.

If we could define success in a way that accounts for everyone; and that everyone would agree upon that would be great. But there seems to always be some who acheive more; and those who feel they deserve more.

What I'm saying is I can't define success for anyone other than myself. The question I said above that's italisized was half serious and half toungue in cheek. Simply because even though it's a simple question, it's also as complex as humanity itself. A simple solution wouldbe great; but if we could come up with that we wouldn't be having this discussion; we'd be talking about how awesome the world is instead.

Really I'm just curious on other peoples thoughts on the matter.

In Human Resources you have Maslows Heirachy of needs.

Survival - Earning enough to eat and stay alive.

Safety - Roof over your head and enough savings for dentist visits etc.

Social - Social interactions through work.

Self Esteem - The need to feel good about yourself.

Self Actualisation - Living up to your full potential.

Those are the drivers that motivate people in a job and Human Resources design the workplace so you get each one of them (assuming its a decent company). Self Actualisation is the American Dream and its the highest level of Maslows pyramid as displayed on American money.

The US state is setup so all citizens can reach self actualisation if they want it. The bottom man can rise to the top through merit, being productive and achieving success in his job. Self Actualisation for all people is realisable in the US.

You dont get that in Soviet Russia, North Korea or China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Edited December 21, 2011 by Mr Right Wing

[Guest]

Corporations arent anti-social or corrosive. All businesses attract a certain percentage of toxic employees and some will get promoted before its realised what they are. They dont represent the business or its policies and the Human Resources Department of Corporations take a dim view of their attitude towards other staff.

The senior management and directors of a business put in place decent, sound policies. They cant police the whole Corporation so if there are toxic employees its partly the staffs duty to bring it to managements attention. Some sociopaths are very good at playing people so they might not even realise they have a sociopathic worker or manager.

As for Corporate Responsponsibility business managers are taught to represent all stakeholders starting with the most important. They are taught to represent the needs of the country and surrounding community. The reason for this is to prevent bad reputations which can damage revenues. An example of very good Corporate Responsibility is the BP oil leak where they spent billions trying to repair the damage they had done.

Business owners are people like everybody else. They dont lack morality simply because they own a share of a business. Many donate large sums of money to all areas of society, many take environmental concerns seriously.

Capitalism has done a lot for the west. Look at North Korea its desolute.

Your last comment shows you haven't actually got a clue where I am coming from.

You should watch the movie "The Corporation" to get a better handle on what I am saying. It illustrates my point nicely as it contains an interview with the CEO of Shell, who is a really nice man who takes all the issues you are talking about seriously. However on his watch they were responsible for killing activists in Nigeria and polluting the Niga delta to an unbelievable degree. They were simply working to Nigeria's regulator framework and maximising their profits whilst doing so. Corporations are not the individuals who make them up, they are individuals unto themselves who express their company charter and the Laws which govern companies behaviour. It is the companies themselves who are sociopathic - not the employees.

They all work to the principle that they have to out compete with their competitors - or die. Ethical standards cost and so savings will be made in places where the bright light of public scrutiny cannot shine. Hence almost all of your cloths are made in sweat shops in Asia - top to bottom of the industry.

Companies behave to the standards they think they can get away with - and frankly the public aint looking most of the time.

Br Cornelius

[Leonardo]

The US state is setup so all citizens can reach self actualisation if they want it.

That is a myth.

I would agree that the US has as one of it's principles, the notion that "anyone can be President". But the reality is quite different.

The US is one of the better nations when it comes to social mobility - but that mobility is usually limited to a 'step or two' on the "social ladder". The (very) few that do manage to make a strong surge towards the upper echelons of US society (if we are to assume this society is stratified according to wealth) are the exceptions that prove the rule.

The nature of free-market capitalism, which is one of the foundations of US society, is to concentrate wealth among a few. This limits the opportunity for any social mobility on a large scale, and can only be (partially) offset by government programs which are, ironically, derided as being 'socialist' in nature.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Leonardo

[conspiracybeliever]

In Human Resources you have Maslows Heirachy of needs.

Survival - Earning enough to eat and stay alive.

Safety - Roof over your head and enough savings for dentist visits etc.

Social - Social interactions through work.

Self Esteem - The need to feel good about yourself.

Self Actualisation - Living up to your full potential.

Those are the drivers that motivate people in a job and Human Resources design the workplace so you get each one of them (assuming its a decent company). Self Actualisation is the American Dream and its the highest level of Maslows pyramid as displayed on American money.

The US state is setup so all citizens can reach self actualisation if they want it. The bottom man can rise to the top through merit, being productive and achieving success in his job. Self Actualisation for all people is realisable in the US.

You dont get that in Soviet Russia, North Korea or China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

And you don't get that here in the US either. It's all a lie. Please see below.

[Mr_Snstr]

In Human Resources you have Maslows Heirachy of needs.

Survival - Earning enough to eat and stay alive.

Safety - Roof over your head and enough savings for dentist visits etc.

Social - Social interactions through work.

Self Esteem - The need to feel good about yourself.

Self Actualisation - Living up to your full potential.

Those are the drivers that motivate people in a job and Human Resources design the workplace so you get each one of them (assuming its a decent company). Self Actualisation is the American Dream and its the highest level of Maslows pyramid as displayed on American money.

The US state is setup so all citizens can reach self actualisation if they want it. The bottom man can rise to the top through merit, being productive and achieving success in his job. Self Actualisation for all people is realisable in the US.

You dont get that in Soviet Russia, North Korea or China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

If that is what you truely beleive than I suggest you go about convincing everyone who disagrees with that. Obviously that is not how allot of people feel in the US. Whether or not its is irrelevent to whether it is perceived as true.

If enough people feel that the system is rigged against them; you'll quickly see the system eat itself.

[Guest]

Yes, a "pure" capitalism offers monetary incentives. Which do not always directly translate into the actual needs of society.

What would you say are viable alternatives that eliminate these shortcomings? We should not demonize what we have so easily without knowing our alternatives.

It is not that easy to express a system of solutions when you are embedded deeply in the problem. It is almost impossible for me or anyone else to conceptualise what an ethical society might actually look like since the layers of assumptions which have brough us to where we are go all the way to genetic behaviour expression. However failure to actual acknowledge that the system we operate in is fundamentally the root cause of our various problems - means that there is absolutely no possibility of progress towards a solution. Unfortunately I feel that the crisis will make the solution and only when resistance can no longer hold back the flood gates will the issues be looked at for what they are.

Even I fundamentally cannot see past our comfortable market based civilisation - but that doesn't mean that I accept it as the best of all possible worlds - because it is far from that.

I think we could make a lot of progress by incentivising innovation which saves resources and human effort whilst improving comfort. At the moment there are powerful incentives to build in redundancy and inefficiency into every system we live with - this is because it maintains the market for a product in perpetuity. Eliminate the need and we can move on to solving the next problem. Eventually when all resource based problems have been addressed we can concentrate on incentivising innovation which creates real measurable progress in society. Fundamentals to achieving this are self sufficiency in energy from sustainable, self sufficiency in resources so that no virgin materials which cannot be grown sustainably are ever extracted again. Closing the energy and resource loop is the first step. It cannot be achieved when the largest industries in the world rely on societies dependence on their limited resources (think oil).

Some key goals;

-everyone has shelter

-no one dies of hunger

-population growth reversed

-energy self sufficiency for all

-towns structured to minimise transport

That should keep us busy for at least a century or so, and then a real plan for the future could be put in place.

Br Cornelius